But it required intellectual processing of the ideas conveyed in the posts you responded to in order for your post to be a cohesive.

You cannot act without thought- all animals process information around them and interact accordingly. When the reaction is very quick ie. blinking in a sand storm, we call it 'instinctive' or 'reflexive' and that is fair enough, but its still a reaction to external information interperated by the brain.

Try reading Pirsig's Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance- it addresses human interperatation of the world according to 'quality' of all experiences. Its interesting, and may offer a fresh angle on what you are trying to convey.

Kids don't really understand how much they don't know because they don't have the experience to gauge it. They read their world from their experience (as do we all). Also, it is the lack of restriction to their mental process through lack of training/conditioning which makes them seem wise by making observations an adult might find amazing.

As we get older we hopefully gain more experience and insight. This allows us to read the world. The more/less experience we have the more/less we are able to make greater interpretations.

This is presumably why some older people are so rigid and stuck in their ways; they have experienced things through a narrow thought process and have interpreted it in a narrow way which has not necessarily allowed them to expand their worldview. OR they have stopped expanding their world view and have allowed their intellect to stiffen up.

If we go into a different culture we have two choices (at least); rad the world from our (perhaps) limited knowledge, whereby we either interpret everything according to what we know OR accept we are in a new situation and allow ourselves to experience it all as something new and learn about it as we go on (not actually that easy).

Cord's namesake in the film (Silent Flute?) is a good illustration of this first way of reading. (If I remember correctly) He interprets his teacher's actions as being negative because he doesn't know the full situation and only later learns how good they were when he knows the complete situation.

Cord: How long have you been blind? Blind Man: How long have you been blind? Cord: I'm not blind. Blind Man: Am I? Cord: Do you answer every question with a question? Blind Man: Do you question every answer? Cord: Aww, talking to you is like talking to a wall. Blind Man: Buddha once sat before a wall, and when he arose he was enlightened. Cord: Do you compare yourself with Buddha? Blind Man: (chuckles) No. Only to the wall.

As Lady Bracknell says, "A gentleman should either know nothing or everything, which do you know?" "I know nothing Lady Bracknell". "That is good. Nothing should interfere with natural ignorance".

_________________________
See how well I block your punches with my jaw!!

It is very difficult to get this idea across to those who use their intellectual mind to process the world around them. What I mean by "no thinking" is not the idea of being brain dead but rather not using the logical portion (ego) of their mind to process information. The logical mind is many thousands of times weaker than the intuitive mind, yet in my experience over 99% of people use (or are trapped by) the former.

Forgive me for saying the following but your responses are very typical of someone who does exactly that. The very idea that another has grasped an idea that you haven't hurts the logical mind enormously and you will of course react by telling them they are wrong.

It has taken the intuitive mind over 3 billion years to develop, yet the logical mind has come about in the last few hundred thousand. Sacrificing the latter puts you in touch with the former. The problem is that logically you would think that this makes you dumber when in fact it makes you many times more intelligent. True intelligence isn't measurable like IQ is, and the more you use your IQ the less you really know.

My IQ is 159. I am a member of MENSA and a genius. Yet I am adamant that this is useless in terms of life experience, and I try not to use it unless it is necessary because it leads to blindness and madness. Einstein was also adamant that he didn't use his IQ to discover what he did, but stated that if an idea doesn't sound absurd (in logical terms), then there is no hope for it.

I did a little bit of research on Pirsig and in the book you suggest it states, "the physical distance between people has nothing to do with lonliness. It's psychic distance....And people seem to go through huge portions of their lives without much conciousness of what is immediately around them" What I'm saying is that thinking impedes conciousness and therefore increases lonliness. If you're thinking you are day dreaming. Awake, but dreaming just the same.

Osho says it better than I can. Look into his eyes, is he thinking logically or using pure intuition?I hope this somewhat clarifies what I'm trying to get across.

Enlightenment isn't some far off state of mind that has to be reached. Instead we are all enlightened by our nature, it's just that every instant we do something that takes us away from this natural peace. Stop thinking, and you realise your nature. Once you've had a glimpse, you'll do anything to stop thinking, because you'll know its a trap. It is extremely unlikely that any of us will be able to fully immerse ourselves in this conciousness as Osho had done, but we can all develop intuition to a high level and become more peaceful as a result.

_________________________
Sticks n stones'll break my bones, but if I land the first one, you're in trouble!

Quote:Forgive me for saying the following but your responses are very typical of someone who does exactly that. The very idea that another has grasped an idea that you haven't hurts the logical mind enormously and you will of course react by telling them they are wrong.

I will be sure to contact my old Uni Philosophy lecturers for clarification

Do you not see that in me questioning your interperetation of the world, not only have you resorted to the intellectual thought process to respond, but you have done so out of ego as you feel slighted that I have questioned your theory

Have you read Pirsig yet? I was serious in my advice- his rendering of all life experience in terms of instinctive qualatative value would help you understand and consolidate what you are trying to convey.

Unless you have so much ego invested in your theory as to make questioning it further yourself impossible, of course.

The thing is, if you are interested in this stuff, it will behoove you to study philosophy as a broader church- look at classical as well a modern, search for the commonalities and the distinctions between the labyrinthine theories from all around the world that go towards explaining the how's and why's of our beahaviour, purpose, and place in the universe.You dont have to agree with any of them, but you do need to understand them in order to make sense of your own philosophy should, like you, you decide to define it and represent it to others.To do otherwise is like stating 'red is the best colour in the world' when you have seen no other.

So good luck in your search, as I feel you have yet to start it with any seriousness.

Edited by Cord (02/03/0911:37 AM)

_________________________
Sticks n stones'll break my bones, but if I land the first one, you're in trouble!

JKD, I must apologise- I have no idea how I ended up editing my reply to you over your post It was not intended, and I truly do wish you happy hunting through the academic world of philosophy should you choose to investigate it further.

Quote:What I'm saying is that thinking impedes conciousness and therefore increases lonliness. If you're thinking you are day dreaming. Awake, but dreaming just the same.

Thinking is going to happen. If you try to stop it from happening, it will only lead to negative feelings. Living in this world means thought will arise. Just reading these words you have to think.

The thing is then, knowing that thoughts will arise, dis-attach from them. Let them come and go.

Thinking doesn't impede consciousness, or make one lonely-- clinging to those thoughts does, allowing them to form an identity that you delude yourself into believing is real.

It is from the very notion that your thoughts divide you from others that causes this division. Where is the division? What thought caused it? Was any other thought directly responsible besides the thought of 'I am divided from others because of my thoughts?'.

"Though I think notTo think about it,I do think about itAnd shed tearsThinking about it."

--Ryokan

Quote:Instead we are all enlightened by our nature, it's just that every instant we do something that takes us away from this natural peace.

What is enlightenment? Does it require a total separation from the world, or is it present every second?

When you are taken away from the 'natural peace', realize that there never was such a thing.

Quote:Stop thinking, and you realise your nature.

What realizes it?

Quote:Once you've had a glimpse, you'll do anything to stop thinking, because you'll know its a trap.

Then you're still caught up in desire (as am I). The desiring mind is insidious, and even when the hoped for outcome is admirable, it is still just another in-road for the ego to assert control again.

"If you ignore its profundity, you can never practice stillness.Like the Great Void, it is Perfect and lacks nothing, nor has any excess.If you discriminate, you will miss its suchness.Cling not to external causes, nor stay in the Void.Differentiation ceases if you can be impartial.Stillness comes when all disturbances are stopped, clinging to stillness is also a mistake.If you cling to opposites, how will you know the One? "

--Jianzhi Sengcan, 3rd Patriarch of the Zen School.

Edited by Ames (02/03/0905:40 PM)

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

I feel we are all trying to explain the same ideas, just like there are 112 yoga sutras yet some will suit our disposition better than others. Truth seems to be individualistic.

Yes I am still bound by desire, but I make valiant efforts daily to improve myself instead of others, and have been doing so for years. I know my own insanity, this is what I mean by glimpsing truth, your nature recognises itself. I am however unattached to the need to be right and I get no enjoyment out of "picking holes" in the arguments of others. I'm trying to help, as your servant, and I am learning in the process.

Cord, I did spend years studying philosophy and science as a true seeker, but for the minute however I've given up the academic route and seek even higher happiness from practical experience instead. I love to improve myself and will read the book you suggest in an attempt to rid myself of my ignorance. (please understand that there is no mocking here, my post is sincere)

I will say though that I absolutely love love LOVE my life, not one iota of a lie. Most often I am blissful and peaceful and others notice and many want a taste. Others criticise and make themselves suffer as their remarks bounce off.

Again, it is best for me to bow out of the conversation as it seems to be harming some people which is completely unintended. My positivity could be placed somewhere more productive, and I will go on sending love letters without judgement until they are received, and in the meantime I receive your message in an open minded manner and will improve only myself.

_________________________
Sticks n stones'll break my bones, but if I land the first one, you're in trouble!